Tempo Workouts (Read 237 times)

I'm talking about the specific term 'Tempo' and how it is applied in training... and while I agree that LT can be marginally improved by mileage, what does that have to do with the specific references to '5-6 miles at MP' as a tempo workout? Why not call long runs a tempo run, too? Or recovery runs?

How does 5-6 miles at MP, specifically, contribute directly, as a primary stimulous, to impoving LT? It doesn't. It's good stuff, but it's a MP run that is primarily used to improve running economy at that specific pace.

Well you asked how it improves LT and I answered. I'm not that interested in the semantics.

And I disagree that 5-6 miles at MP does not directly contribute to improvements in LT. Depending on timing, that is a money LT workout.

I'm going to run 8 miles at Marathon Pace tonight and it says right there in the book that it is a Tempo run. It's printed in the book and they are highly respected coaches so they can call them what they want I guess.

I don't understand any of it, but I'm going to call my run tonight a MP Tempo run because that's what they call it in the book.

They get up to 10 miles at Marathon Pace and still call that a Tempo run too, even though that will take me almost an hour and a half to run.

Now see... you're implying it's planned marathon pace, not marathon pace. Those are different things. If your planned marathon pace is 'a reach' for you, then yeah, 6 miles at planned marathon pace can be a little challenging... but if 6 miles at planned marathon pace is 'comfortably hard' at the beginning of your marathon training cycle (assuming it's 18 weeks or less), I'd wager you won't make it 26 miles at that pace on race day.

In my opinion, analyzing training into physiological concepts and very distinct physiological zones and paces can be problematic, as it causes the very sorts of confusions that MattM keeps raising on this thread. Good training is always contextual, but analysis of running in terms of physiological factors in the body takes the body out of the context of training and treats it as a reified, stable, and atemporal object.

Training operates and works as a contextual environment over weeks, months, and years. Analyzing it in terms of instantaneous physiological snapshots of bodily functions is just as likely to mislead as it is to be accurate. Understanding training by looking at one particular physiological response like trying to understand an ecosystem by measuring the height of a particular sort of tree.

What is the value of a 6 mile run at MP? This question can only be answered in terms of the runs that came before it and the runs that came after it. There really is no such thing as a 6 mile run at MP 'in itself' -- it's value is always relational, and its meaning must be determined through those relations.

I use a tempo pace range... I'll do the faster end on 25 mins and the slower end on 40 mins. And yes, it's comfortably hard. 6 miles at MP is just comfortable.

Well you said 1 hour race pace, which to me is a constant. That is what threw me.

I do like the concept of pct of a race and have done tempos that way. I guess that I went at about 45% on average, e.g., if I could race a HM in 100 minutes then 45 minutes at that effort would be realistic.

There are both perspectives; specificity of a given training component in isolation, and it's application in a fluid context. The first makes it easy to grasp the concepts (science?) behind things like LT and VO2Max, their relationship to physiology, and how they can be intertwined in a training context. The latter deals more with the practical application over time. It's good to at least understand both perspectives.

The reason I brought it up is that it's easier to relate the various components to newer runners if your can use the first perspective, training components in isolation, and then marry it to the ways in which one can approach intertwining them. Over time, a runner evolves along their own training continuum. Speaking of which... it's time for me to go run...

This hypothetical runner does a 5K at 6:00 pace, lactate threshold at 6:24, and marathon pace at 6:52. (16, 15, 14 km/h in the chart respectively). If marathon pace generates a blood lactate of 3mmol for a longer duration, while mile repeats (at 6:15) may temporarily push lactate to 6mmol for a much shorter duration, can one conclusively argue that one method provides a better stimulus than the other? The scientific answer is no, as studies of this question have produced inconclusive and often conflicting results.

This explains why some swear by mile repeats, others are convinced that tempo at threshold is best, while still others advocate a lot of miles at MP. All of these will have an effect which is to some extent individualized.

So, Jeff, 5-6 miles at MP is comfortably hard? I'm in the camp that it's closer to 25-40 mins at 1 hour race pace. That's comfortably hard for me.

And yeah, google 'Tempo Run' and read every definition that is returned.

5-6 miles at MP in the middle of a high volume week with another hard workout is "comfortably hard" for me. It takes some concentration but I can get through it and recover for another workout in 2-3 days time.

zonykel

posted: 3/14/2013 at 8:36 PM

The Hanson book defines tempo runs as marathon pace runs. But they don't claim it to be a universal definition of tempo run.

I'm going to run 8 miles at Marathon Pace tonight and it says right there in the book that it is a Tempo run. It's printed in the book and they are highly respected coaches so they can call them what they want I guess.

the kenyan

posted: 3/14/2013 at 8:50 PM

meh, it's all semantics. Tempo is arguably one of the more debated types of workouts; I've seen the definition be anywhere from threshold pace to marathon pace to 'meh, i felt crappy during the race, so I just turned it into a tempo run'.

I know for me, it's usually an elevated effort at 10k-half marathon pace, but usually closer to 10k. I'm in the camp that identifies the half/full marathon pace runs as precisely what they are: 'pace runs'. I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with calling them tempo runs, but it's important to recognize the different purposes that they serve. I use these runs when I'm trying to improve my pacing and get a feel for a certain zone, whereas I'll use the faster-pace runs to boost my LT.

So in a nutshell, call your runs what you want to, but make sure your training objectives are being met.